BBM: Thanks for the article. The CTA drives the NEA so the vote on Prop 32 will have influence beyond CA. Michigan has also provided leadership for the NEA over the last couple of decades with the "Michigan Mafia" referred to in Peter Brimelow's book. Indiana, by contrast, has been a money pit for the NEA with the financial headaches of the ISTA.

Question: To get the results of all state referendums in one place, does anyone know of a website providing that info.?

Thanks for the vid, BBM. I've had my first positive response from a trustee (details are confidential) which is heartening. Following is my presentation to the Board yesterday.

P-H-M School BoardSept. 10, 2012 M y interest in the Corporation continues to be two-fold: (1) ending the withholding of union dues from teacher paychecks and (2) adhering to the new collective bargaining law, particularly as it relates to “wage-related matters.”

The Luddite in me, however, begins to question the apparent rush to have a laptop for every high school student. A brief Google search for “laptops in high schools” reveals much activity in many communities to buy or lease laptops or a related product for their high schools.

I was struck by a paragraph in an article regarding the Wayland, MA, and Natick, MA, school corporations both of which are going with Macbooks, “Both districts are moving forward with the initiative after years of research, pilot programs, and professional development for teachers, the superintendents said. Both communities also visited school districts in and out of state that are already using one-to-one computing” (Jan. 29, 2012).

Are trustees confident that the administration’s push for computers includes sufficient research, pilot programs, professional development for teachers and visits to schools where laptops are being used? Have trustees done research on their own or are they depending on what the administration tells them?

Another disturbing aspect is the casual attitude, displayed at the last meeting, to adding $2.4 million to the Corporation’s indebtedness. Just because the bond money is easily obtained doesn’t mean that more debt comes without consequences, particularly in these economic trying times.

Trustees should insist on a written proposal from the administration with the four or five year projected costs of the program given in detail along with an action plan for implementation.

I sense that the Board wants to take the plunge into classroom computers. So be it. But I also sense that several trustees are concerned about the price and other expected costs, the possible impact on student fees, and the necessary steps for implementation.

The caution light should be on for this project.

A brief article, “Negative Effects of Laptops in High School,” will be given to you at this time.

A couple of facts from the office of the PHM Superintendent upon request: Union dues deducted for teachers range from $325 to $748 annually. The "vast majority of teachers paid the full $748." "Roughly 85%" (of 433 teachers) had union dues deducted from paychecks.

Kingsman wrote:A couple of facts from the office of the PHM Superintendent upon request: Union dues deducted for teachers range from $325 to $748 annually. The "vast majority of teachers paid the full $748." "Roughly 85%" (of 433 teachers) had union dues deducted from paychecks.

I'm thinking the teachers would rather put that toward their Insurance premium now rather than dues.... and they need to thank Obamacare for the raise in rates... this is all over the U.S., not just Indiana..

"Preserving and protecting the principles of the Constitution is the primary role of the federal government."

Concerning the new contract between the Corporation and the Penn-Harris-Madison Teachers Association, henceforth the “union,” I make the following recommendations.

The process should be transparent, particularly in view of the new state collective bargaining law. Teacher union contracts are to be limited to “salary and wage-related matters.” “Salary” is clear enough, but “wage-related matters” may be open to different interpretations. Certainly the wage schedule for extra duties would be one item for the agreement, but what about paid released time for union officers to visit schools in the Corporation or lobby at the state legislature? (I’d vote “no” on the released-time part.) In any event, the new agreement should be much leaner than the present contract. The legislature has provided school boards with a significant new power. Use it.

Trustees should instruct the superintendent to draft a list of specific items in the “wage-related matters” category and present them for Board discussion and approval at an open meeting. There should be opportunity for visitors to comment on those recommendations before the Board votes.

In a sense, Trustees are “present at the creation” of something that will set an important precedent for years to come in the relationship between the Corporation and the teachers union. Clearly the legislature favors a brief agreement with the union. Each trustee should be on record in relation to the subjects for collective bargaining. This matter is too important to be settled by a private meeting of the superintendent and the president of the union.

One other request, a repeat: ask the Corporation’s attorney to give an opinion on the Corporation’s practice of withholding union dues for PHMTA in light of state law IC 20-29-7-1 which says that it is an “unfair practice” for a school employer to “discriminate, interfere, or assist in the formation or administration of any school employee organization or contribute financial or other support to the organization” (my emphasis). The practice of withholding gives a huge advantage to PHMTA over other ways for teachers to organize, ways that would cost them much less than the $748 most teachers are paying in annual dues.

I think the statute deals mainly with the legislature’s approval of a process by which teachers can pay into an annuity (such as a 403(b) tax deferred account) thereby helping them provide for retirement. But the inclusion of the terms “insurance,” “other protection,” and “dues” could be argued in support for withholding union dues. Anything greater than 20% participation ensures that (a) applies—which is the PHM situation regarding union membership. Anything less than 20% gives the Board the right to refuse participation if so inclined.

The above argument in favor of the current practice reminds me of a Finley Peter Dunne quote, “What is a brick wall to a layman is a triumphal arch to a corporation lawyer.”

Two factors count more than the above statute in understanding current policy: it’s a long-standing practice and the Board-union relationship has been generally contention-free. Whether that constitutes an “unholy alliance,” as one teachers’ union critic has described such relationships, is for others to decide. Though I regret the Board’s opinion, I understand why it is unwilling to tell the union to collect its own dues.

I’ll explore the issue at the state level for awhile unless there is a new development which might change the Board’s position—and lead to a $500 or more “bonus” for many teachers.

I’ll continue to be interested in the laptop and teacher contract issues—as well as commenting on what didn’t happen during the Oct. 8th meeting.